The Planning Committee considered the Planning Case Officer’s report incorporating responses from statutory and non-statutory bodies, heard from speakers for and against the application, including a representative from Catsfield Parish Council, and sought additional information and clarification from the speakers.  After discussion and consideration of the above, the Planning Committee while noting an in-principle support for a high-end tourism facility that would enable investment in the local economy and enable local job creation, felt that the sheer scale of the proposal as such located within a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) was counter to local and national planning policy.  The Applicant noted in their response to questions that they did recognise the harm that the application would cause to the character and setting of the AONB and the 1066 County Walk and stated that the beauty of the landscape was the very reason why they had pursued this application within this setting.  They argued that they had moderated the harm and felt that the benefits as tabled by the application outweighed that harm (as required by National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 177).

The Planning Committee noted that this was an outline application, and that the development would come forward through reserved matters as tabled by third-parties as yet unknown.  They noted the overall size and massing of the proposal and questioned how such a substantial development could be integrated into this complex and sensitive landscape setting recognising that the application presented short to long-term irreversible harm to the character and setting of the High Weald AONB.  The Planning Committee felt that on balance, the harm outweighed the potential benefits (as assessed in accordance with NPPF paragraph 177 in the officer report) and the Council’s Local Plan and voted unanimously with the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.

Following the vote, the Chair, echoing comments made during discussion, thanked officers and the applicant for their courteous and helpful presentations.

DECISION: REFUSE (OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION)

Reasons for Refusal:

1.      While acknowledging that the proposed development represents investment in the rural economy and tourism sector, which has policy support, the proposals by reason of the significant quantum of development (c. 70,825sqm of GIA and resident population of c.800 people) would be akin to the development of a new village within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Its location does not support sustainable growth, nor does it represent the expansion of an existing, agricultural business / diversification of a land-based rural business. By reason of the scale of development it would result in direct, indirect, and long-term harm to the countryside which would not conserve or enhance the landscape habitat(s), nor the landscape character and scenic beauty of the High Weald AONB. As such the proposals have not been demonstrated to represent ‘exceptional circumstances’ nor have they ‘demonstrated that the development is in the public interest’ when weighed against the three tests set in National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 177 and hence would be contrary to NPPF paragraphs 84, 176, 177 and 180; Local Plan Policies OSS1, OSS2, OSS3, RA1, RA2, RA3, EC6, EN1 and EN5 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies DEC2, DEN1, DEN2, DEN4, DEN7 and DIM2 of the Development and Site Allocations Plan and Objectives G2, G3, S2, S3, R1, R2, W1, W2 and W3 (in part), FH3 and FH4 (in part), and OQ4 of the High Weald AONB Management Plan.

2.      It is considered that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrably assess the potential impacts on environmental and biodiversity matters to inform appropriate mitigation, compensation, and enhancement for an application in such a complex and within a multi-layered Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) setting. The scale of development, the extent of its distribution across the site, the density of the lodge sittings, the massing and size of the lodges themselves, along with the accompanying infrastructure including a large car parking area for 350 cars, would create a prominent and incongruous intrusion into the rural setting, appearing as an intensive overdevelopment of the site and out of keeping with the surrounding, not reflecting the historic pattern and character of settlement, and harming the landscape character and scenic beauty of the High Weald AONB. As such the proposal would be contrary to National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 176, 177 and 180; Rother Local Plan Policies OSS1(e), OSS4(iii), EN1 and EN5 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies DEN1, DEN2, DEN4 and DEN7 of the Development and Site Allocations and Objectives G2, G3, S2, S3, R1, R2, W1, W2, FH3 and OQ4 of the High Weald AONB Management Plan.

3.      It has not been demonstrated that the intensification in use of the sub-standard access to the south from the B2204 in the centre of Catsfield village, (an access which includes third party ownership) and proposed to serve the affordable workspace, can provide acceptable access without the introduction of hazards by the slowing, stopping, turning and reversing traffic which would be created. In addition, there are a number of matters regarding the new access to the east and the improvements to the northeast access which the Applicant wishes to resolve at reserved matters stage. Access is, however, a matter to be determined as part of this outline application. Noting in particular the objection regarding the sub-standard access to the south and in the absence of resolution of all highway access matters to be determined at this stage, the proposals would therefore trigger paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 and be contrary to Policy CO6(ii) and TR3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy.

NOTE:

(i)        This refusal relates to the following plans:

Principal points of access

1)      Existing North East Gate Plan (Drawing No. 890/P150/Rev January 2023)

2)      Existing North East Gate Elevation (Drawing No. 890/P151/Rev January 2023)

3)      Proposed North East Gate Plan (Drawing No. 890/P152/Rev January 2023)

4)      Proposed North East Gate Elevation (Drawing No. 890/P153/Rev January 2023)

5)      Existing East Gate Plan (Drawing No. 890/P154/Rev January 2023)

6)      Proposed East Gate Plan (Drawing No. 890/P155/Rev January 2023)

7)      Proposed East Gate Elevation (Drawing No. 890/P156/Rev January 2023)

8)      Existing West Entrance Plan (Drawing No. 890/P157/Rev January 2023)

9)      Proposed West Entrance Plan (Drawing No. 890/P158/Rev January 2023)

10)    Amended Hierarchy Access Plan (Drawing No. 21115.113/Rev 28/07/2023)

11)    East Access (Drawing No. 22406-06-2/Rev November 2022) (DTA Response 31 March 2023)

12)    East Access – Large car tracking (Drawing No. 22406-06-2-TRK/Rev November 2022) (DTA Response 31 March 2023)

13)    East Access – PROW improvements (Drawing No. 22406-07/Rev April 2023) (DTA Response 31 March 2023)

14)    North East Access (Drawing No. 22406-06/Rev. C April 2023) (DTA Response 31 March 2023)

15)    North East Access – Refuse vehicle tracking (Drawing No. 22406-06-TRK/Rev. C April 2023) (DTA Response 31 March 2023)

16)    West Access (Drawing No. 22406-06-3/Rev November 2022) (DTA)

17)    West Access – Large car tracking (Drawing No. 22406-06-3-TRK/Rev November 2022) (DTA)

Parameter Plans

18)    Site Location Plan (Drawing No. 890/P001/Rev.A July 2023)

19)    Build Zone Areas and Layout (Drawing No. 890/P002/ Rev.A July 2023)

20)    Arboricultural (Drawing No. 890/P003/ Rev.A July 2023)

21)    Building Heights (Drawing No. 890/P004/ Rev.A July 2023)

22)    Land Uses (Drawing No. 890/P005/ Rev.A July 2023)

23)    Landscaping (Drawing No. 890/P006/ Rev.A July 2023)

24)    Existing Public Rights of Way (Drawing No. 890/P010/ Rev.A July 2023)

Detailed Design Guide

25)    Proposed Illustrative Masterplan (Drawing No. 890/P101/ Rev.A July 2023)

26)    Updated Design Guide (submitted July 2023)

General supporting

27)    Illustrative Landscape Strategy (Drawing No. 21115.112/Rev.O January 2023)

28)    Unit Schedule (submitted July 2023)

29)    Block Plan (Drawing No. 890/P110/ Rev. A July 2023)

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK:  In accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 38) and with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern within the proposal and discussing those with the Applicant.  However, it has not been possible to resolve them.  It has clearly set out the reasons for refusal, thereby allowing the Applicant the opportunity to consider the harm caused and whether or not it can be remedied as part of a revised scheme.